10 March 2009

i slept for eleven hours last night. a new record for weekday sleep without sickness. i made up for all of this with some high-octance productivity.

early morning class, on the wonderful and interesting topic of sex education, and the history thereof {side story: i very much got caught twittering last week in class, so luckily the topic was of adequate interest that my laptop stayed put. lesson learned}

wonderful coffee with mikael, and talking of new york trip {eeeee.}

finding out that i-got-into-grad-school {eeeee.}

a nice, long, leisurely trip to fabric stores with the mother of a friend.

said trip led to a long, leisurely stroll through bridal stores. and finding a very wedding-y, very lovely dress. that i would never wear again. that is completely impractical. that made me feel like i was covered in this marvelous sugary wedding dust. i was in a daze the car trip home. this is everything that i do not stand for {also, it had a marvelous boustierre that made me feel so sexy, and like i could do anything and still look good}.

steph is right. deep down, i'm a girl. ick.

{practical stuff: the dress is only $450. the materials to make said dress would cost nearly $350. the shoppe selling it is barely breaking even. sure, it's four times what i wanted to spend. on the other hand, it's one-tenth what a friend spent way back when}

2 comments:

Ah, I know the lure of a sugary wedding dress, but my mom will be making mine based on a design of me and a friend. Best part is that materials won't even cost $200! Would your dress be very large and complicated (i.e., lots of boning?).

yes, ma'am. the person shopping with me (friend's mother, who is a tailor) calculated materials at cost ($350). there are three layers to the dress, boning, and lots of pearls and things. i really didn't think i would like such a dress until i tried it on...